MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Alexander Bidenton’s Standing IRS Army

Posted by M. C. on August 16, 2022

By Thomas DiLorenzo

Federal tax evasion is a felony, and felons cannot legally own firearms, nor can they vote in at least a dozen states.  Biden’s standing army of tax collectors can therefore, in theory, kill three or four “deplorable birds” with one stone, so to speak.  One wonders:  What would Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Madison think of this?  And what would they do about it?

The Biden administration’s “Inflation Reduction Act” will increase inflation with hundreds of billions in additional government spending and money creation by the Fed while making supply chain problems even worse with onerous new corporate taxes, especially on energy, and myriad new “Green New Deal” environmental regulations.  Increased government spending and reduced production will cause higher prices, not lower.

To collect all the new taxes for this latest election-year spending binge the administration is proposing to spend some $80 billion to more than double the number of IRS agents, hiring 87,000 new ones, 70,000 of which are reported to be armed.  The Democrat party wants a standing army of armed tax collectors to enforce its will.

Americans once fought a revolution over such acts of tyranny.  Among the abuses by King George III listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence were that he “sent hither Swarms of Officers [i.e., armed tax collectors/enforcers] to harass our people, and eat out their substance” and “He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, standing armies . . .”  That is how King George III collected the notorious stamp tax.  He sent armed soldiers into the homes of the colonists to demand that they prove they had paid the stamp taxes on all of their documents, a stamp being essentially the receipt for taxes paid.  And that was just for the stamp tax.  They also confiscated firearms and deprived the colonists of civil liberties.  It is little wonder that the founding fathers adamantly opposed a standing army in peacetime, only allowing for two years of funding for the army in the original Constitution.  “A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen,” declared James Madison.  It is “the bane of liberty,” said Elbridge Gerry.  History proves that standing armies have caused “havoc, desolation, and destruction” wrote George Mason.

Jefferson’s nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, may have been a war hero but after the war, as America’s first treasury secretary, he tried to resurrect an American version of King George’s standing army of tax collectors.  In the early 1790s Western Pennsylvania farmers protested the first federal tax on a commodity, a distilled spirits tax known as the whiskey tax.  The farmers distilled much of their grain into alcohol and even used whiskey as a medium of exchange.  They felt discriminated against since there was no similar tax on tobacco, rice, etc. and so they refused to collect and pay the tax, even tarring and feathering federal tax collectors when they showed up.

Since the whiskey tax was his idea, Hamilton talked President George Washington into getting the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to provide some 13,000 conscripts to ride into Western Pennsylvania to enforce the whiskey tax.  A large standing army of tax collectors, in other words, larger than the army that defeated the British at Yorktown.  George Washington himself led the army of tax collectors into Western Pennsylvania but the protesters had all but vanished when they got there.  About twenty of the leaders of the tax rebellion  — some of whom were elderly Revolutionary War veterans — were rounded up and “run through the snow in chains,” wrote William Hogeland in The Whiskey Rebellion.  Washington apparently got bored by the whole affair and went home, leaving Hamilton in charge.

Hamilton ordered local judges to render guilty verdicts against all the men who were eventually imprisoned and, if Hamilton had his way, would have been hanged.  Only two out of twenty were convicted, however, and President Washington pardoned them both, putting an end to America’s first British-style imposition of a standing army of armed tax collectors.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Who Is Most Responsible for the Ongoing War in Ukraine?

Posted by M. C. on August 16, 2022

The Ukrainian war’s long roots stretch back to the pre-1914 protectionist era. Protectionism led to the First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, countless wars in the Middle East, and the Ukrainian war. In effect, protectionism before 1914 caused a hundred years’ war. At least 150 million lives have been lost in this tragic hundred years’ war.

The only way to prevent war is to remove its root cause. If the twentieth century can teach us anything, it is that protectionism and socialism cause war. Eliminating government intervention in the economy is the key to preventing war. As Ludwig von Mises advises, “there is but one system that makes for durable peace: a free market economy.”

https://mises.org/wire/who-most-responsible-ongoing-war-ukraine

Edward W. Fuller

John Mearsheimer recently gave an important lecture on the Ukrainian war. He warns that “the United States is now effectively at war with Russia.” Mearsheimer argues, “The United States is principally responsible.” Alexander Stubb contends in a reply to Mearsheimer, “The only place to blame is the Kremlin, Putin, and Russia.”

Commentators who play the blame game over Ukraine do not understand the cause of war in the modern world. The Ukrainian war is the latest chapter in an ongoing hundred years’ war that began in 1914. Those who fail to realize this cannot understand the cause of the war nor how to end it and prevent future wars.

All of the governments entangled in the Ukrainian war share responsibility. Government intervention in the free market economy is the fundamental cause of all modern wars, including the Ukrainian war. All of the governments involved have systematically intervened with the free market economy for decades. Thus they are all to blame for this war.

Protectionism, Imperialism, and War

To fully understand the Ukrainian war, it is necessary to understand what caused the First World War.1 Many historians agree that a “fresh wave of territorial imperialism” after 1880 resulted in the First World War.2 But most historians cannot explain what caused the frenzy of imperialism from 1880 to 1914. The answer is protectionism.

In July 1879, Otto von Bismarck introduced a new tariff in Germany.3 As economists stress, a tariff benefits domestic producers at the expense of two groups: 1) domestic consumers and 2) foreign producers. A tariff impairs business in foreign nations, and foreigners naturally resent this.4

Bismarck’s tariff was a great mistake. However, as Ludwig von Mises emphasizes, “even if all other nations cling to protection, a nation best serves its own welfare by free trade.”5 Rather than embracing free trade, Germany’s neighbors foolishly raised their tariffs. As the table below illustrates, “all the large countries (except the United Kingdom) had very protective trade policies in 1913.”6

What does protectionism have to do with imperialism? A nation cannot profit from an empire in a world of free trade. By contrast, a protectionist nation can benefit from an empire.7 Consequently, protectionist governments are impelled to violent territorial expansion. The return of protectionism after 1880 started a new wave of territorial imperialism that culminated in the First World War.

Consequences of the First World War

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

CBS Wanted To Do Critical Reporting On Ukraine’s Government But Ukraine’s Government Said No

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2022

You can’t have it both ways. Either you want the mass media to serve as war propagandists or you want them to tell the truth. You cannot hold both of those positions simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive. And many actually want the former.

Caitlan Johnstone

Following objections from the Ukrainian government, CBS News has removed a short documentary which had reported concerns from numerous sources that a large amount of the supplies being sent to Ukraine aren’t making it to the front lines.

The Ukrainian government has listed its objections to the report on a government website, naming Ukrainian officials who objected to it and explaining why each of the CBS news sources it dislikes should be discounted. After the report was taken down and the Twitter post about it removed, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said this was a good start but still not enough.

“Welcome first step, but it is not enough,” Kuleba tweeted. “You have misled a huge audience by sharing unsubstantiated claims and damaging trust in supplies of vital military aid to a nation resisting aggression and genocide. There should be an internal investigation into who enabled this and why.”

Antiwar.com

@Antiwarcom

CBS Removes Documentary on Ukraine Military Aid After Pressure from Ukrainian Government #Ukraine‘s FM called for investigation into the documentary, which found that most military aid wasn’t making it to the frontlines by Dave DeCamp

@DecampDave

#cbsnews https://news.antiwar.com/2022/08/08/cbs-removes-documentary-on-ukraine-military-aid-after-pressure-from-ukrainian-government/…

Image

7:42 PM · Aug 8, 2022·Twitter Web App

The CBS News article about the documentary was renamed, from “Why military aid to Ukraine doesn’t always get to the front lines: ‘Like 30% of it reaches its final destination’” to the far milder “Why military aid in Ukraine may not always get to the front lines.” An editor’s note on the new version of the article explicitly admits to taking advisement on its changes from the Ukrainian government, reading as follows:

This article has been updated to reflect changes since the CBS Reports documentary ‘Arming Ukraine’ was filmed, and the documentary is also being updated. Jonas Ohman says the delivery has significantly improved since filming with CBS in late April. The government of Ukraine notes that U.S. defense attaché Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon arrived in Kyiv in August 2022 for arms control and monitoring.”

CBS News does not say why it has taken so long for this report to come out, why it didn’t check to see if anything had changed in the last few months during a rapidly unfolding war before releasing its report, or why it felt its claims were good enough to air before Kyiv raised its objections but not after.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Did the FBI Win Joe Biden the 2020 Election?

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2022

Shortly after taking office after Franklin Roosevelt’s death, President Harry Truman commented in his diary: “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail…This must stop.” But FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover outfoxed Truman and every subsequent president.

In 1964, the FBI illegally wiretapped Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s presidential headquarters and plane and conducted background checks on his campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. The FBI also conducted an extensive surveillance operation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention to prevent embarrassing challenges to President Lyndon Johnson.

by Jim Bovard

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/did-the-fbi-win-joe-biden-the-2020-election/

Joe Biden won the 2020 election as a result of 43,000 votes in three states. The election was far closer than the media has usually admitted. There were plenty of dubious factors that could have tipped the scales for a Biden victory, including machinations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Long History of FBI Abuse

Though the media usually portray the FBI as the ultimate good guys, the bureau has long history of intervening in presidential elections. Shortly after taking office after Franklin Roosevelt’s death, President Harry Truman commented in his diary: “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail…This must stop.” But FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover outfoxed Truman and every subsequent president.

In the 1948 presidential campaign, Hoover brazenly championed Republican candidate Thomas Dewey, leaking allegations that Truman was part of a corrupt Kansas City political machine. In 1952, Hoover sought to undermine Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson by spreading rumors that he was a closet homosexual.

In 1964, the FBI illegally wiretapped Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s presidential headquarters and plane and conducted background checks on his campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. The FBI also conducted an extensive surveillance operation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention to prevent embarrassing challenges to President Lyndon Johnson.

In 2016, the FBI whitewashed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, protecting her despite her various crimes regarding handling of classified information and destruction of emails and other evidence from her time as secretary of state. An Inspector General report revealed in 2018 that the key FBI agents in the investigations were raving partisans. “We’ll stop” Donald Trump from becoming president, lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok texted his mistress/girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, in August 2016. One FBI agent labeled Trump supporters as “retarded” and declared “I’m with her” [Hillary Clinton]. Another FBI employee texted that “Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” The FBI failed to make any audio or video recordings of its interviews with Clinton aides and staffers. It also delayed speaking to Clinton until the end of the investigation and planned to absolve her “absent a confession from Clinton,” the Inspector General noted.

The FBI failed to stop Trump from winning in 2016, but FBI officials devoted themselves to crippling his presidency with fabricated evidence implying that Russia had illicitly intervened in the presidential election. One top FBI lawyer was convicted for falsifying evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to target Trump campaign officials. FBI chief James Comey leaked official memos to friendly reporters, thereby spurring the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump. Mueller’s investigation generated endless allegations and controversies and helped Democrats capture control of the House of Representatives in 2018 prior to admitting in 2019 that there was no such Russian conspiracy. Not one FBI official has spent a single day in jail for the abuses.

The Ongoing Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Government Surveillance Doesn’t Stop at Your Bank’s Door

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2022

Warrantless surveillance may be novel for technology and media companies, but it is nothing new when it comes to the government’s surveillance of Americans’ financial activity.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/government-surveillance-doesnt-stop-banks-door

By Jennifer J. Schulp and Norbert Michel

This article appeared in New York Daily News on August 11, 2022.

Modern life is full of sharing mundane information with others. Your cellphone company knows where you’ve been, your home security system knows your visitors, and your bank knows your spending habits.

And it’s often not just your service providers that know. Law enforcement has used many of these treasure troves of information without first obtaining a warrant. This warrantless surveillance — which prompted a recent hearing by the House Committee on the Judiciary — may be novel for technology and media companies, but it is nothing new when it comes to the government’s surveillance of Americans’ financial activity.

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA) requires financial institutions to assist federal agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering and other crimes. It does this in a number of ways, including by enlisting financial institutions to report certain customer activities to the government.

One report is a “currency transaction report,” which is filed for any deposit, withdrawal or other transaction involving currency of more than $10,000. That means if you deposit more than $10,000 in cash, your bank must tell the government. And it’s illegal to try to avoid the report by breaking a transaction into smaller increments.

Warrantless surveillance may be novel for technology and media companies, but it is nothing new when it comes to the government’s surveillance of Americans’ financial activity.

Financial institutions also must file “suspicious activity reports” on transactions suspected to be related to illegal activity. The government requires these reports be kept confidential, including from the customer implicated.

These obligations don’t just apply to banks; they also apply to a host of entities including currency exchanges, money transmission businesses, broker‐​dealers, casinos, pawnbrokers, travel agencies and car dealerships. In 2019, more than 20 million reports were filed by more than 97,000 entities.

As Rep. Jerrold Nadler put it: “The easy availability of personal data to the government poses significant risks to minorities, to those with unpopular views, to our system of justice, and ultimately, to the stability of our democracy itself.” While the government’s interest in stopping crime is certainly an important one, the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment already balances that interest with an individual’s interest in privacy by requiring the government to obtain a warrant to access a person’s documents and information.

The BSA fails to achieve the Fourth Amendment’s balance, and the Supreme Court is partly to blame. Several cases in the 1970s established what is known as the “third‐​party doctrine,” which essentially exempts information that has been provided to a third party, like a bank, from the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Under that doctrine, since such information is no longer “private,” the government can access it from the third party.

Although the Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality — when the government required less reporting from financial institutions — several justices were concerned about the BSA’s privacy intrusions. Two justices cautioned in California Bankers Association vs. Shulz that significantly extending the reporting requirements would be problematic, explaining that “[f]inancial transactions can reveal much about a person’s activities, associations and beliefs. At some point, governmental intrusion upon these areas would implicate legitimate expectations of privacy.” Other justices thought that the BSA had already crossed the constitutional line. Justice Thurgood Marshall was clear: “By compelling an otherwise unwilling bank to photocopy the checks of its customers the government has as much of a hand in seizing those checks as if it had forced a private person to break into the customer’s home or office and photocopy the checks there.”

The scope of the BSA’s surveillance has greatly expanded since then through additional regulatory requirements and the increasing use of intermediaries in routine financial transactions. Some current Supreme Court justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor, have recognized that today’s reliance on technology requires revisiting the third‐​party doctrine. As Gorsuch explained, “just because you have to entrust a third party with your data doesn’t necessarily mean that you should lose all Fourth Amendment protections in it.”

Even without a Supreme Court condemnation of the BSA, though, Congress should step up to prohibit this type of government surveillance. While not without its problems, the Stored Communications Act prohibits an end‐​run around the Fourth Amendment for data collected by internet service providers. The bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, introduced in the Senate, would prohibit law enforcement from purchasing individuals’ data. Congress should apply the same logic to financial data.

Catching criminals is a worthy goal (even if it’s questionable how much the BSA contributes to that effort), but the Fourth Amendment already balances privacy with law enforcement needs by requiring the government to get a warrant. The same rules should apply under the BSA.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

WEF’s “Global Intelligence Collecting AI” to Erase Ideas from the Internet

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2022

For example, in addition to looking at my Twitter profile, WEF’s proposed AI would also look at my Gettr profile, and then it would make an “intelligent decision” to remove me from the Internet at once. It is somewhat of a simplification because they also want to look for ideas and not only individuals but, nevertheless, the search for wrongthink becomes globalized.

Naughty GETTR posts? Say bye-bye to your TWITTER account

By Igor Chudov
Igor’s Newsletter

The World Economic Forum is becoming a little concerned. Unapproved opinions are becoming more popular, and online censors cannot keep up with millions of people becoming more aware and more vocal. The censorship engines employed by Internet platforms, turned out to be quite stupid and incapable. People are even daring to complain about the World Economic Forum, which is obviously completely unacceptable.

So, WEF author Inbal Goldberger came up with a solution: she proposes to collect off-platform intelligence from “millions of sources” to spy on people and new ideas, and then merge this information together for “content removal decisions” sent down to “Internet platforms”.

To overcome the barriers of traditional detection methodologies, we propose a new framework: rather than relying on AI to detect at scale and humans to review edge cases, an intelligence-based approach is crucial.

By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms. Supplementing this smarter automated detection with human expertise to review edge cases and identify false positives and negatives and then feeding those findings back into training sets will allow us to create AI with human intelligence baked in. This more intelligent AI gets more sophisticated with each moderation decision, eventually allowing near-perfect detection, at scale.

What is this about? What’s new?

The way censorship is done these days is that each Internet platform, such as Twitter, has its own moderation team and a decision making engine. Twitter would only look at tweets by any specific twitter user, when deciding on whether to delete any tweets or suspend their authors. Twitter moderators do NOT look at Gettr or other external websites.

So, for example, user @JohnSmith12345 may have a Twitter account and narrowly abide by Twitter rules, but at the same time have a Gettr account where he would publish anti-vaccine messages. Twitter would not be able to suspend @JohnSmith12345’s account. That is no longer acceptable to the WEF because they want to silence people and ideas, not individual messages or accounts.

This explains why the WEF needs to move beyond the major Internet platforms, in order to collect intelligence about people and ideas everywhere else. Such an approach would allow them to know better what person or idea to censor — on all major platforms at once.

Read the Whole Article

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Can Trump and Putin Avert Cold War II?

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2022

That was 2017. Now the question is can we stop the MIC from starting a nuclear WW III.

January 2, 2017

by Linda

In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland’s Eastern shore.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that 35 U.S. diplomats would be expelled. But Vladimir Putin stepped in, declined to retaliate at all, and invited the U.S. diplomats in Moscow and their children to the Christmas and New Year’s party at the Kremlin.

“A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger,” reads Proverbs 15:1. “Great move,” tweeted President-elect Trump, “I always knew he was very smart!”

Among our Russophobes, one can almost hear the gnashing of teeth.

Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being “Putin’s puppet,” lost.

Is then a Cold War II between Russia and the U.S. avoidable?

That question raises several others.

Who is more responsible for both great powers having reached this level of animosity and acrimony, 25 years after Ronald Reagan walked arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev through Red Square? And what are the causes of the emerging Cold War II?

Comes the retort: Putin has put nuclear-capable missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.

True, but who began this escalation?

George W. Bush was the one who trashed Richard Nixon’s ABM Treaty and Obama put anti-missile missiles in Poland. After invading Iraq, George W. Bush moved NATO into the Baltic States in violation of a commitment given to Gorbachev by his father to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army withdrew.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, says John McCain.

Russia did, after Georgia invaded its breakaway province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers. Putin threw the Georgians out, occupied part of Georgia, and then withdrew.

Russia, it is said, has supported Syria’s Bashar Assad, bombed U.S.-backed rebels and participated in the Aleppo slaughter.

But who started this horrific civil war in Syria?

Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….

Was it not our Gulf allies, Turkey, and ourselves by backing an insurgency against a regime that had been Russia’s ally for decades and hosts Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean?

Did we not exercise the same right of assisting a beleaguered ally when we sent 500,000 troops to aid South Vietnam against a Viet Cong insurgency supported by Hanoi, Beijing and Moscow?

That’s what allies do.

The unanswered question: Why did we support the overthrow of Assad when the likely successor regime would have been Islamist and murderously hostile toward Syria’s Christians?

Russia, we are told, committed aggression against Ukraine by invading Crimea.

But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.

Crimea had belonged to Moscow from the time of Catherine the Great in the 18th century, and the Russia-Ukraine relationship dates back to before the Crusades. When did this become a vital interest of the USA?

As for Putin’s backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

Has Putin no right to be concerned about his lost countrymen?

Unlike America’s elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?

We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.

Moreover, the populist, nationalist, anti-EU and secessionist parties in Europe have arisen on their own and are advancing through free elections.

Sovereignty, independence, a restoration of national identity, all appear to be more important to these parties than what they regard as an excessively supervised existence in the soft-dictatorship of the EU.

In the Cold War between Communism and capitalism, the single-party dictatorship and the free society, we prevailed.

But in the new struggle we are in, the ethnonational state seems ascendant over the multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual “universal nation” whose avatar is Barack Obama.

Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and her rights as a great power to be respected.

He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his.

The worst mistake President Trump could make would be to let the Russophobes grab the wheel and steer us into another Cold War that could be as costly as the first, and might not end as peacefully.

Reagan’s outstretched hand to Gorbachev worked. Trump has nothing to lose by extending his to Vladimir Putin, and much perhaps to win.

Make America Smart Again – Share Pat’s Columns!

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Talking About Stoicism 187 Let Your Mind be Your Fortress” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2022

https://youtu.be/3t927LIlIwQ

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What “New Libertarian Country” Projects Get Wrong

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2022

By Joe Jarvis 

Correction: This article has been edited to add information about Prospera’s legal standing.

I want to found my own country. I don’t like any of the options available, and I think I could design a better governing structure that allows freedom and prosperity to flourish.

But that’s a tall order.

There have been a number or projects and concepts which tried to gain various levels of autonomy.

Operation Atlantis

In the early 70s, Operation Atlantis intended to gather libertarians, sail out to international waters, and declare sovereignty. They built a boat out of rebar and concrete, and it sank into the Hudson. They revived it, and managed to bring it all the way down to the Bahamas… where it sank again.

Who isn’t John Galt?

More recently a couple projects in Chile named after an Ayn Rand character fell apart before they began. And those weren’t even special jurisdictions that could set their own tax rates and business regulations, for example. They were essentially just meant to be intentional communities with likeminded people come together to learn and produce.

One appeared to be a legit scam, and the other was abandoned due to the political situation in Chile.

Chile had a lot going for it, but then elected extreme socialists who are rewriting the Constitution, and went mental over Covid… so it turned out not to be the best location for those looking for freedom.

Liberland

Then there is Liberland, which seven years ago planted its flag on an unoccupied river island between Croatia and Serbia which neither country officially claimed since the 1991 dissolution of Yugoslavia. Its motto is “To live and let live” and they have done a great job thinking through a form of Republican government, and mapping out the land. They want to essentially become a micro-state with a free economic zone.

But no one actually lives on the land, and visitors have in the past been detained by Croatian secret service just for visiting. However the President of Liberland claims they are building more positive ties with the Croatian government.

Prospera

One of the most promising projects to create a special legal jurisdiction is Prospera on the island of Roatan, part of Honduras. It used existing legislation to create a ZEDE– Zone for Employment and Economic Development.

The project was well underway when a new party came to power vowing to boot the “neo-colonizers”. Prospera has a solid legal basis to fight any revocation of its charter… in Honduran courts. Not exactly known as a country extremely committed to rule of law.

However, after publishing this article, Prospera’s legal team reached out to inform me that although the legislation authorizing ZEDEs has been repealed, the government has “not officially denied our position that the ZEDE repeal does not apply to Prospera.”

Furthermore, if it comes to it, the project will likely not be arguing in Honduran courts due to “legal stability agreements that ensure jurisdiction for any dispute is the international arbitration body known as ICSID.”

I do however think my earlier point stands: how much growth and prosperity do you expect to attract locked in a legal battle for existence, in a hostile political environment?

Don’t get me wrong, I think projects like these are awesome, and I’m glad someone is doing it.

But to try to gain more success, we need to look at these with a critical eye, to learn what worked, what didn’t, and where we can improve to make the dream a reality.

One issue is is hostility of host/ neighboring governments:

  • Everything should be completely legal
  • Should have support or at least acceptance of surrounding community

Second, these need to be profitable and scalable:

  • Startup phase is fine, but how will you make money in the not-so-distant future?
  • Scale is key to making a profit and attracting investment

A third problem is starting too big:

  • Insufficient benefits to get people to move
  • Declaring sovereignty is not the first step

So I have been thinking about how I could solve these problems to make a new country project a success.

And I came up with a five step plan to start small, and grow into a sovereign country.

  1. Grow an online community focused on parallel economy businesses
  2. Build a physical community to incubate parallel economy businesses
  3. Expand physical community to achieve scale and self-sufficiency
  4. Charter a special economic zone to increase legal, regulatory, and tax benefits to members
  5. Purchase sovereignty, and form new country

This solves the previous problems identified by:

  • All legal, choose friendly places
  • Ways to profit built into each phase, with scale
  • Incremental, step by step, attracting the right people at each phase
  • Each layer builds on a strong foundation.

So I am starting with the Parallel Economy Project.

We can specialize and trade to build a foundation for a new economy that will support projects like these, so we don’t have to rely on hostile institutions.

That’s what the Parallel Economy Project is all about. Being part of a community taking steps to ensure that they are in positions of strength for the coming new economic order.

Join today on Locals with a free trial using code FOUNDER (expires on September 18). There are two exclusive videos already uploaded, one on why geopolitical changes over the next decade could allow new countries to form, and the other on how to use mass desire to market a parallel economy business.

In September, a new video will be released that goes into much more detail on the physical community which I intend to break ground on by September 1, 2024– two years from launch.

If you’d like to get the brainstorming going about what kinds of parallel economy businesses you could start, enter your email below, and I will send you a free video with 12 parallel economy business ideas you can start making money with today.

If we do it right, we will have all the replacements ready when the old institutions come crumbling down. Massive wealth and power will be decentralized, and transferred into the hands of those who saw what was coming, and prepared.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thomas Piketty Wants to Bring Back Communism in the Guise of Democratic Socialism

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2022

Piketty is a Marxist who has written a great deal on income distribution to promote income redistribution and other Marxist goals. He exhibits no knowledge of economics and economic theory except that implied by the construction of economic statistics. His proposed solutions are implicitly violent, destructive, and unable to achieve the desired results.

https://mises.org/wire/thomas-piketty-wants-bring-back-communism-guise-democratic-socialism

Mark Thornton

Thomas Piketty
A Brief History of Equality
Harvard University Press, 2022

Thomas Piketty’s Brief History is the fourth installment of his assault on economic inequality, following as it does the best-selling Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Capital and Ideology. The third, Time for Socialism: Dispatches from a World on Fire, 2016–2021, is just a collection of popular articles based on which the New York Times dubbed Piketty a “vaguely left-of-center” economist. This slim fourth volume from Harvard University Press calls for far-reaching socialist policies to establish economic equality. It is a siren song of communism: “economic justice” without any cost or noteworthy harm to society.

The primary reason for my concern with Piketty and this book is the relative influence of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto (written with Frederick Engels) versus his Kapital: A Critique of Political Economy. The Manifesto was short, on point, and politically actionable while Kapital was long, jargony, filled with footnotesand nebulous concerning political action. Indeed, Marx’s view of history told Kapital readers to sit tight for generations and suffer, while the Manifesto was an immediate call to arms around the world!

In terms of relevance, the Manifesto’s ten-point program would become the political action platform for democratic socialists worldwide and public policy in leading nations by 1917. In contrast, the highly improbable Marxist takeover of Russia had no blueprint from Kapital, led to one economic disaster after another, and ended in failure, as Ludwig von Mises predicted. Piketty may have at least learned that lesson and advocates a social-democratic-type takeover.

All of Piketty’s books are terrible from an economic perspective. Most importantly, all are as dangerous to political economy as Marx’s books were catastrophic to hundreds of millions of people, especially the lower-income people Marx and Piketty propose to help. The brevity of this book makes it potentially the most socially devastating of the four.

Brief History

Up until two centuries ago, more than 95 percent of humanity lived in “extreme poverty.” That number had fallen to about one-third of the global population by the end of the 1980s and is now less than 10 percent, and still falling, all during a period of rapid population increase. This is one of the most important facts you can say about the entire history of humanity, and yet it seems not widely known—and how it was achieved is completely lost on Piketty.

Piketty gives no indication to me that he is an economist or any kind of disinterested objective scientific observer. However, his statistic- and chart-filled books give the impression of a scientific basis for his policy conclusion. Piketty is a Marxist, an advocate for communism, but all in the guise of a conventional democratic socialism. However, his dedication of the book reminds readers of the Manifesto’s finale.

He does admit that the last quarter millennium has also been a powerful movement toward greater economic equality, but he largely ignores how the enormous, sustained increase in the standard of living was achieved. It just happened. He does want readers to understand his views that this improvement was not the result of capitalism, that sociopolitical systems are just a matter of democratic choice, and that various forms of socialist and union agitation are to be credited with economic progress.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »